Misandry and female privilege in the way we are taught to form relationships

*Might* be a biological/evolutionary basis for males jumping through hoops to try and impress females and females being selective...

https://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/articles/(article)how_females_choose.html

You are very confused that much we both agree about....

Lets just explain a couple of basic concepts of logic. These will help clarify things for you. On this planet and in this reality people who hold different beliefs to you might not agree with you about history. Do you understand this basic concept? Just incase you don't, allow me to elaborate...You are a feminist. I am not. You have your own interpretation of history which feminists like you will agree with. I am not a feminist. Therefore, I might disagree with you and your interpretations of history and people who disagree with feminism, like me are going to disagree with you too. That's how basic logic works on this planet, in this reality, this 'universe'.

OK.....now that we've got this out of the way, lets deal with your interpretation of history but before we do that I need to address one more thing...I'm not debating you here. As I explained before, i believe that debating feminists is often (as I believe is the case with you) a total waste of time......but these replies they are not only for you but for everyone that might want to read them.... and so I am going to address these issues for everyone else that might want to consider them.

1. You claim that "patriarchy says that men (should) pick a woman to be their wife". That the patriarchy puts the onus on the man to make the move.

Patriarchy, just incase you might not know, is (putting it simply) a feminist principle which claims that men rule over the world and are in a state of privilege which they use to subjugate and disadvantage women.

Ask yourself the following question:

Who benefits from men making the move? Do men benefit from this culture or women? Well as a result of this culture men are exposed to rejection whilst women are protected from rejection. Men as a result of this culture are taught to bow and crawl on all fours and present women with gifts, diamonds and jewellery in order to please women and gain their approval. Women are not.

So who is being disadvantaged here? The one doing the bowing or the one being bowed to? The one seeking approval or the one being sought for approval? the one facing rejection or the one being protected from rejection? of course common sense entails that the one doing the bowing and the one seeking approval and the one facing rejection is the one who is in a state of disadvantage whilst the other who is protected form these things is in a state of privilege.

Clearly we see that women are in a state of privilege as a result of this culture. This is not agreeable with patriarchy. This disproves patriarchy which preaches the opposite that men are in a state of privilege and women in a state of disadvantage. So this is not patriarchy.

This addresses your first point.

2. You claim that "In general, (men) used to get rejected by the woman's father, or oldest brother."

That is a good example of a distortion of history. Approval has ALWAYS been ultimately sought from women. In some parts of the world men sought approval from the woman through the father not from the father....so the approval was given by the women and not the parent. This culture is inscribed in the main religions of the world. Men have to seek approval directly or indirectly from women. The oldest religion that teaches this principle is Judaism, which by conservative estimates is over 3000 years old. So 3000 years ago men were obliged by religion to seek out approval from women.

What else did you say in your comment?

3. "Of course, since it was realised that women are people, the woman has been able to say no to the man".

When in history, anywhere on this planet, in this reality, in this 'universe' were women not recognised as people? How could a gender that is not viewed as human be worthy of protection at the expense of a human's life? throughout history men have been taught to protect and put their lives on the line for women....in what reality would it make sense for a human being to be taught to give up their life to a protect a non-human? why would a man be raised to die for a woman if she was considered a no-worth non-human. Throughout history religions have worshiped female gods...women have lead armies in the west and the east...sheba, boadicea, cleopatra, Aisha etc...how could people allow themselves to be lead by inferior non-humans? Do you feminists think at all before you write your nonsense? Do you understand why I tell you that you live in an alternate reality? because your interpretations do not conform with our reality.....they do not make sense...they are illogical...and all it takes is two seconds worth of thought to refute everything about everything that you claim....

4. You claim that "we've still got this patriarchal idea of wooing and being a gentleman along with the equal notion that the woman gets to make her own choice."

This is not a patriarchal idea. Like I explained before; patriarchy states that men are in a state of privilege and women in a state of disadvantage...who benefits from this culture of gentlemenly behavior? who benefits from wooing? WOMEN!!!!!! how could it be a patriarchal idea if women come out on top as a result of it? does making sense mean anything to you feminists?

This culture reflects our biology. We are programmed to chase and mate with women. They are programmed to be as discerning as possible and to mate only with the most virile

It's nature famalam, and as soon as you start interfering with millions of years of evolution, guess what? You start encountering significant psychological/sociological issues

Far from encouraging women to act increasingly like males (feminism/women's lib), we should recognise and respect our healthy, balanced, natural essence

You see OP, one does not have to bow in deference to women in order to get results under modern cultural norms

Just have to learn to balance communicating sexual/romantic interest and nobility with commanding respect

I act like a gentleman when I find a girl that acts like a lovely lady that I would like to be in a relationship with. It's fun when you have a girl that obviously likes you but you're both doing the chasing flirty games anyway.
Pretty rare to find this type of girl though so usually I just go for the equality approach with everyone when I'm not looking for romance.

You don't have to approach anyone if you don't want to. You can find a feminist girl and treat her like a man if you want lol.

Lol but what is she's a Feminist and wants to Be dominated ? win win

Ye it's only if she has the stereotypical horrible feminazi personality I won't even touch them with a stick lmao.

You're the type of girl I'd describe as a lovely lady tbh. Kind hearted, good morals, principles, etc.

What I she tells you she wants to dominate you?

You're so lovely,thank you

Please say mashallah,I don't want the curse of the evil eye on me...

Oh look it's TSR's top misogynist. The guy who believes that women in developing countries where marital rape isn't even a legal definition, have it so much easier than men.
-snip-

This culture reflects our biology.

We are programmed to chase and mate with women.

They are programmed to be as discerning as possible and to mate only with the most virile

It's nature famalam, and as soon as you start interfering with millions of years of evolution, guess what? You start encountering significant psychological/sociological issues

Far from encouraging women to act increasingly like males (feminism/women's lib), we should recognise and respect our healthy, balanced, natural essence

You see OP, one does not have to bow in deference to women in order to get results under modern cultural norms

Just have to learn to balance communicating sexual/romantic interest and nobility with commanding respect

Splutter - what makes you think I believe that?

If you believe this debate is a waste of your time, I don't know why you made this thread and continue to respond to it.

1. The patriarchal background to a man picking his wife means he got the choice on her attributes, could insist she was a virgin, would pick from the best families. Etc.

I'm going to link the rest of point 1s response into point to 2... 2. Approval was not sought from women. If you think a woman had the right to say no then you're sorely mistaken. Some women still have no right to say no. Some women are getting murdered or attacked for saying no. Martial rape wasn't a thing until the 90s in this country, and still isn't some places. Child brides are still a thing……

3. I admit a little bit of hyperbole for effect there,

but I refer to no right to say no, no right to own property or vote or... well, I don't feel the need to continue with this list because we all know what I'm getting at.

Women were protected because they were property, because they were there to have children and raise them, regardless of their desires to do so or not.

4. You used to have to woo the father, make it clear you were a good match for his daughter.

Now the woman is the one with the opportunity to say no, so that has transferred over to her. It is still the same principles and it has the patriarchal root

We've had a slight breakdown of the patriarchal idea, as I said earlier, and this issue why it appears that women are getting the better deal here. For equality to be achieved we need to completely ditch what we have that is ditched in patriarchy and let people decide what they want to do - somewhere people want to pursue and get done on one knee, some people want to be pursued, we should be able to do that regardless of gender.

I hate the idea that men have to pay for everything, I get back when men had the money and women most likely did not it made sense but now things should be shared, If I buy something for you I expect you to buy something or atleast split the bill

Foo you are obviously a considerably intelligent guy, but what you say sometimes simply contradicts the academic literature.

Don't bet on it.

Also that is the worst argument ever. 'Academic literature' is 90% a bunch of people who studied the subject at uni (which in multiple degrees has about as much to do with real world practice as a fish has to do with an airplane) and want to pretend they didn't waste their time so sit around in research departments churning out garbage to feel better about themselves or under the misguided illusion they're actually making a significant contribution to the field. The remainder is people who really know what they're talking about going on about in in such detail and depth you don't even know what they've said never mind how to critique it.

Those numbers are totally arbitrary but my point is a lot of so called academic literature is complete claptrap even if it comes from a smart person (see Aristotles theory of equity, just wtf) - the question shouldn't be what do academics say, the question should be 'who is right'. This simplification of how we process information is why people believe ridiculous stuff, because they read it in a textbook somewhere during their degree so it absolutely must be gospel.


I'm only here for the fireworks (this thread went down exactly as I expected it to) but that kind of comment worries me.

Totally, the random guy of the internet must be right.

Still sore? Shame.

(a) By my own specification I'm more likely to be one of the 90% of know nothings when I pass so that's not what I'm saying
(b) You know it isn't and you're misrepresenting me AGAIN (do you have an argument of your own or is it too much effort to think of that and simultaneously invent mine?)
(c) What actual argument against 'we should find out who is right' do you have? Being academic /= right. Fact. Therefore we should find out who is right rather than blindly believe whatever we read. Opinion. Which part of that do you disagree with or are you just being pathetic?

edit - I've just realised what you did. He wasn't talking to me you moron, I've not had an opinion on this thread. Well played